Trust Me, Reagan Would Win the Nomination

My colleague Rick Moran has agreed with Jeb Bush’s assessment that Ronald Reagan, whose name is something of a by-word for conservatism, would have trouble getting the GOP nomination in today’s political climate.

I must respectfully disagree. Over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord has thoroughly disemboweled the essentials of Bush’s argument. For my modest part, I offer here a restatement of a comment I made under Rick’s article, in which I propose the following thought experiment:

Let’s say Ronald Reagan were somehow brought back to life, had his health restored to that which he had in the early 1980s (although our knowledge of his two terms as president would remain fully intact) and, in light of the abolition of term limits, decided to run for president again on the GOP ticket.

Who from the most radical leftist to the most mealy-mouthed centrist to the most dedicated Burkean conservative doubts for one fraction of a nanosecond that Reagan would be able to get the nomination to run against Obama?

For the philosophical purists out there, I realize that my thought experiment contains a built-in bias. This notional, resurrected Reagan benefits from our knowledge of what his presidency was actually like, but I believe that Lord has shown that even if our New Reagan were brought back to life in a pre-1980 version, he would still win the nomination, since the Gipper faced harsh criticism from the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party even before he ran against Carter, and still went on to rip the peanut farmer and Mondale apart.

Robert Wargas is a contributor to PJ Media. A native of Long Island, he was educated at the City University of New York and Yale University, and has also written for The Daily Telegraph of London and The Weekly Standard.
Outside of opinion writing, he has worked as a professional historian for a major research laboratory and university, documenting the history of biotechnology since the 1970s. He has also reported for both weekly and daily newspapers, including Newsday.
He maintains a personal blog/website at robertwargas.org. Follow him on Twitter @RobertWargas

Click here to view the 6 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

6 Comments, 6 Threads

1.
Anonymous

When doing historical counter-factuals, I think it is important to realize individuals are not computer programs that do not change with changes in conditions. They are thinking creatures who would act differently if in today’s times–they would in fact act like they are in today’s times, not their own. Their motivating principles would be the same, though the priorities might differ.

Go read or listen to his three-minute radio broadcasts from the 70s, and it should be clear that the man was very intelligent. I have no issues saying he would have no issues today getting the nomination, though he might resonate a little less with the people as a whole since his instinctive knowledge of the WWII generation would not be of any help, and there have been other changes in how the people think–he would have to explain more, have to till the ground before casting his seeds. On the other hand, when you go look at those radio programs, it is clear he could do that. Which gets back to my point–Never think that the talents or tactics a historical individual actually ended up deploying were necessarily the only ones they possessed or could have used.

Ronald Reagan would steam-roll over the last four open (no-incumbent) Republican fields, all the way back to 1988. And he would have been a hard man to have bet against in 2004.

Given that none of the Bushes resemble Burkean conservatives, much less Goldwater/Reagan conservatives, the alleged controversy is moot. Jeb has about much authority to speak on this as does “Boobs” McCain.

Yes, Reagan was willing to settle for half a loaf in preference for none, but his goals & foundations were both clear and immovable. This stands in contrast to the DC/Beltway status-quo Republicans in power.

The Bushes -just to highlight one example- are “big government conservatives;” an oxymoron if there ever was one. Add their voices to the self-proclaimed “moderates” and it’s no surprise they consider Tea Party candidates “intolerant” or “radical.”

I suggest that anyone claiming Reagan could not get the nomination of the Republican party today is ignoring some very basic facts.

Reagan won the nomination initially in 1980.

At that time, the US military was still in disarray from the Vietnam debacle and the favored whipping boy of Hollywood/New York based mass media.

At that time the country was well conditioned via that same media to be far more accepting of the idea of a Democrat controlled majority in Congress.

At that time the country was far more accustomed to a more punitive taxing system that punished the job creators while propping up the underclass and it’s lifestyle choices that resulted in said underclass.

At that time the country was far more tolerant and accepting of gun control, and even the idea of banning handguns entirely within the civilian population.

At that time the country was far more deferential towards government assuming it had authority over most any matter it chose to poke it’s nose into.

All of those circumstances have since been undermined or collapsed entirely due to either public animosity or the public just not allowing itself to be whipped into a frenzy and stampeded into supporting said proposals anymore.

That said, I would suggest Reagan would have a more difficult time getting the nomination in 1980 than he would now, whether the public was aware of how he performed in office from 1981 to 1989.

Yes, Reagan did compromise at times – but it seems to me that it was always with the idea he would get what he wanted in the end.

Immigration is a good example. He allowed an amnesty to become law – but he had extracted an agreement from the Democrat controlled Congress that they would in turn pass tighter border security measures.

The fact the Democrats in Congress lied through their teeth and subsequently refused to pass just such measures after having previously agreed to them does not mean Reagan was in support of amnesty – only that the Democrats stayed true to form and failed to hold up their end of the deal after getting what they wanted.

I always get a chuckle out of these media pundits (like Rick Moran) that can’t see beyond the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom in October 1980 was that Reagan would lose handily to Jimmy Carter.

Unfortunately, the clueless prognosticators like Moran are never held to account for their “predictions”.